Feingold backed by progressives. Bill O`Reilly will hate him then

[MissCatholic]

Sen. Russ Feingold, whose name has become synonymous with campaign finance reform, is raising both his profile and thousands of dollars with his new leadership political action committee.

Feingold, D-Wis., is using the PAC to pay for political travel and to make contributions to fellow Democrats as he tries to help the party regain the Senate next year.

The PAC, the Progressive Patriots Fund, is also likely to pay political dividends for Feingold, especially if he decides to run for president in 2008. The travel is getting him exposure among voters and media outside Wisconsin, and the PAC's contributions will earn him gratitude from influential Democrats.

Rick Wiley, executive director of the Wisconsin Republican Party, criticized Feingold, co-author of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, for setting up the PAC.

"The poster child of campaign finance reform now establishes a leadership PAC. He talks out of both sides of his mouth," Wiley said. "For Feingold to be out there railing about special interest money — his leadership PAC's coffers will be filled with special interest money."

But Feingold said there was no inconsistency in setting up the PAC.

"If it's used properly, for these kind of purposes, it's a positive for the political process, not a negative thing," he said.

He argued that the contributions are limited in a way that does not "corrupt" the political process, and are used to support progressive causes, not "big-monied" interests.

The 2002 McCain-Feingold law not only did not tighten limits on PACs, it arguably made them more important by banning soft money, the large unregulated donations by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals.

Government watchdog groups said there was nothing inherently wrong with Feingold setting up the PAC.

"At this point, leadership PACs are so commonplace that it's not at all surprising," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.

Noble, a former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission, said there is some question about whether leadership PACs should have been allowed in the first place.

"Because they really are a way for members of Congress to, in effect, increase their contributions," he said. "But they are allowed, they are legal. They are now part of the political landscape."

Feingold said he decided to set up the PAC after Democrats from around the country urged him to take a more active role in helping the party turn things around.

As of Feb. 28, the latest report on file, Feingold's PAC had raised $57,000 from about two dozen contributions, most from Florida and New York. Although the March report is not due until April 15, Feingold's campaign manager, George Aldrich, said it will show the PAC has raised about $100,000 through March 31.

The latest report shows no money from political action committees, although Feingold said that he would not eschew such contributions.

Last week, Feingold used the PAC money to pay for his trip to Alabama as he continued his crusade to reach out to people in "red states" — those leaning Republican — and make Democrats more competitive across the country.

Feingold built a national following among progressives with his work on campaign finance reform, and by casting the only vote in the Senate against the USA Patriot Act, the post Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers.

He was emboldened by his showing in last year's Senate race, when he won re-election by 11 percentage points in a state that Democrat John Kerry barely carried.

Several Web sites have sprung up urging Feingold to run for president. Although the ostensible purpose of Feingold's travel is to make Democrats more competitive, he won't rule out a presidential race in four years. But he said that wasn't the purpose of the PAC.


"This is my effort to try to be a part of the national effort to turn the Democratic Party around," he said. "To use a sports analogy, if we ever were in a rebuilding time, this is it."

[TheresNoMoney]

Bill O'Reilly hates all Democrats.

Who gives a sh*t about Bill O'Reilly anyway? Fox News is a sham network.

[Joe Republic]

The more Feingold cosies up to leftist groups, the slimmer his chances at winning a general appear.

[A18]

Bill O'Reilly hates all Democrats.

Who gives a sh*t about Bill O'Reilly anyway? Fox News is a sham network.

Hah. Amusing how only the Memogate network and friends are considered 'real' networks to you.

Some people are truly delusional.

[TheresNoMoney]

Everyone knows Fox News is a sham network.

[A18]

It has a larger audience than any other news network. Try again.

[MissCatholic]

Exactly, fox must not hate the candidade. feingold could be tagged as deans man and destroyed by fox.

[Joe Republic]

It has a larger audience than any other news network. Try again.

Good marketing and appealing to stupid people doesn't make Fox a good source of news.

[Frodo]

It has a larger audience than any other news network. Try again.

Good marketing and appealing to stupid people doesn't make Fox a good source of news.

true, but then again it is a damn good purveyor of government and corporate propaganda that creates people like A18.  that's where its real worth comes in.  consider the survey done a year ago right before the election (i think it was Pew Research) which compared people who watched Fox with those who watched PBS and other networks with their knowledge of foreign affairs, especially in regard to the run-up to the Iraq War, and whether Saddam Hussein was ever connected with Al Qaeda.  those who watched Fox almost exclusively were the least well-informed. 

i'll provide you the survey as soon as i get it, just to underline my point.   

[opebo]

Correct Frodo Fox is an impressive propaganda machine!

[A18]

It has a larger audience than any other news network. Try again.

Good marketing and appealing to stupid people doesn't make Fox a good source of news.

Do you have any idea how stupid the average person watching any network is?

Yes, Fox viewers are stupid when it comes to Iraq. CBS viewers are stupid when it comes to Bush's national guard service, or Social Security for that matter.

[skybridge]

Bill O'Reilly hates all Democrats.

Who gives a sh*t about Bill O'Reilly anyway? Fox News is a sham network.

Yeah, really!

[opebo]

It has a larger audience than any other news network. Try again.

Good marketing and appealing to stupid people doesn't make Fox a good source of news.

Do you have any idea how stupid the average person watching any network is?

Yes, Fox viewers are stupid when it comes to Iraq. CBS viewers are stupid when it comes to Bush's national guard service, or Social Security for that matter.

But the difference, A18, is that CBS is just a run of the mill news organization that may have a very slight, almost indetectable bias.  FOX is entirely a propaganda service with only a pretence of news organization about it.

[TheresNoMoney]

Brit Hume was caught blatantly lying about FRD's wishes on Social Security.

FDR's grandson was on Keith Olberman a few days later explaining how Brit had completely distorted his grandfather's words to fit the Fox News right-wing agenda.

[A18]

Brit Hume was caught blatantly lying about FRD's wishes on Social Security.

FDR's grandson was on Keith Olberman a few days later explaining how Brit had completely distorted his grandfather's words to fit the Fox News right-wing agenda.

Oh, yes, FRD's wishes. I'm sure his grandson really knows what he thought.

Nothing was distorted about the words.

[TheresNoMoney]

Oh, yes, FRD's wishes. I'm sure his grandson really knows what he thought.

Nothing was distorted about the words.

There sure was. Brit made up a lie about FDR being an advocate for private accounts. Everyone who has come forward has pointed that out as a blatant distortion of his words.

Hume has an agenda and it's obvious.

[A18]

Okay, explain the situation.

I've always said that Fox News is partisan hackery. It's just a hell of a lot better than CBS.

[TheresNoMoney]

Okay, explain the situation.

Sure, this is a detailed explanation:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160003

Bear in mind besides Hume, other right-wing talking heads like Sean Hannity repeated this lie over and over.

[A18]

Hmm. For a minute there I thought my opinion of the tyrant had gone up a few notches. Guess not.

Anyway, the difference between that and Memogate is that the latter was an attempt to change the outcome of an election by a bitter old man, and the former was just digging up a GOP talking point right off their website.

I'm sure Fox would have allowed "FRD" (as you call him ) to come on the program and explain it there as well.

He certainly has had liberal guests on to oppose Social Security reform.

[Frodo]

It has a larger audience than any other news network. Try again.

Good marketing and appealing to stupid people doesn't make Fox a good source of news.

true, but then again it is a damn good purveyor of government and corporate propaganda that creates people like A18.  that's where its real worth comes in.  consider the survey done a year ago right before the election (i think it was Pew Research) which compared people who watched Fox with those who watched PBS and other networks with their knowledge of foreign affairs, especially in regard to the run-up to the Iraq War, and whether Saddam Hussein was ever connected with Al Qaeda.  those who watched Fox almost exclusively were the least well-informed. 

i'll provide you the survey as soon as i get it, just to underline my point.   

here it is in PDF format, though it comes from a different polling group:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

the report is entitled, 'Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War'. 

[AuH2O]

Statistically, actually, Fox isn't biased towards Republicans. In 2004 in fact Fox still tilted slightly left based on the ratio of positive/negative stories dealing with Bush and Kerry.

However, CNN and CBS were in the 3:1- 4:1 range, so in contrast certainly Fox looks conservative.

[ATFFL]

Okay, explain the situation.

Sure, this is a detailed explanation:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160003

Bear in mind besides Hume, other right-wing talking heads like Sean Hannity repeated this lie over and over.

If you want the media criticisms to be taken seriously find a neutral source, not an anti-Conservative site.

Media Matters considers any story which does not call George W. Bush a mas smurderer who enjoys slitting the throats of babies horribly biased in his favor.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats need to ignore advice from Fox and other right-wing organizations. Surprise, right-wingers don't have the best interests of the Democratic party in mind when they offer advice.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Fox was caught lying about Kerry several times right before the election. Something about Kerry saying he needed his nails done, communists for Kerry, and lying abot Kerry's positiions on national security (they totally misunderstood his global test  or whatever it was comment).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

BTW if Feingold is just another liberal who doesn't care about red states, then what the hell was he doing in Alabama?

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar05/314080.asp